University Times

Pennsylvania’s new open-records law will not have as broad an effect on Pitt and its fellow state-related universities as on other entities covered under the right-to-know legislation.

While State System of Higher Education schools are included among the commonwealth agencies that must name an open-records officer and be subject to the open-records requirements, fewer disclosures are required from the state-related universities — Pitt, Penn State, Temple and Lincoln.

“The open-records law makes us be accountable for funding we get from the Commonwealth,” Vice Chancellor for Governmental Relations Paul A. Supowitz said, adding that extensive University financial information already is disclosed as part of the annual appropriations process, providing a good picture of how Pitt spends the money appropriated by the state.

The law mandates the four state-related institutions to file an annual report containing the information required by Internal Revenue Service Form 990, which asks for financial information including balance sheet figures and compensation amounts for officers, top administrators and the five highest-paid employees and independent contractors.

Although the University’s 990 form is publicly available, Pitt had not been required to submit it to the state.

The right-to-know law also will require the state-related schools to report the salaries of the 25 highest-paid employees who are not officers or directors. The schools must place a copy of the report in their libraries and post it online.

“Putting the salaries out there is a significant step,” Supowitz said, noting that the annual salary disclosures made in conjunction with the 990s generate considerable public interest.

Supowitz said the new requirements for the University are “not negligible,” but added that they will have significantly less impact than if the state-related schools were included in the broader open-records requirements. “All along we argued that was not appropriate because we are not a state agency,” he said.

Supowitz, Penn State President Graham Spanier and Temple University counsel George E. Moore were among those who presented or submitted testimony in a June public hearing on the proposed open-records law.

In addition to concerns about the cost of handling open-records requests, they cited privacy and safety issues for members of their university communities and economic loss that could result if detailed information on donors, licensing agreements, corporate partnerships and intellectual property were required to be disclosed.

“With respect to the state relateds,” Supowitz said, “I think the General Assembly struck a middle ground that addressed the concerns we had raised.”

The law, signed Feb. 14 by Gov. Edward G. Rendell, aims to make it easier for citizens to obtain government records by reversing the assumption that had placed the burden of proof on the requestor as to why the record should be open. Starting with requests for information in 2009, records are assumed to be open unless a state agency can demonstrate why the information should be protected.

In a prepared statement, the governor said, “Pennsylvania had one of the worst open-records laws because it allowed too many records to be classified, essentially, as closed, unless the person asking could prove that those documents should be public. With the new law, it’s now the state agency’s burden to show why information should be protected.”

The new law includes exemptions that will shield some records from public disclosure. Among those that will be protected are records that likely would result in physical harm or risk to an individual’s personal security or those that could compromise the safety or security of a building, resource or public utility. In addition, some personal or employment information, notes or working papers of public officials and agency employees created for their personal use and some information related to criminal investigations also will remain closed.

Text of the legislation can be found at www.legis.state.pa.us by searching Bill SB 1 or keyword “right to know” in the “find legislation by” box.

—Kimberly K. Barlow